Is A Client Shackled To Attorney’s Fees?

Shacklefordv. Sailor’s Wharf, Inc.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12605, 2019 WL 1812222 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019).

By: Emily Welch

This controversy arises out of theawarding of attorney’s fees. Mr. James Shackleford retained Butler as hisattorney in connection with a suit against Sailor’s Wharf, Inc. The suitpertained to damage to Shackleford’s boat while it was stored with Sailor’sWharf for repairs. Butler incurred costs totaling about $19,925.17. Shackleforddischarged Butler in August 2016 with the claim that he lost faith in Butlerbecause he tried to “strong arm” [1] him into accepting a settlement offer.After being discharged, Butler asserted a lien for 140.8 hours of legal work,costs, and numerous expert witness fees.

In October 2016, Shackleford retained Craig Berman as counsel. Berman and Shackleford reached an oral agreement that Berman would be paid hourly with a small retainer. Once the retainer had been used, any costs and hourly fees would be paid to Berman out of the recovery amount against Sailor’s Wharf. The suit settled on the second day of trial and Sailor’s Wharf agreed to pay Shackleford $30,000. However, Berman had incurred $35,354.24 in fees and costs.

The district court found that Butler had been discharged for cause and that he was only entitled to recover a reduced quantum meruit amount of $13,037.67. Furthermore, the district court found that Butler’s lien was superior to Berman because it was first in time. The appellate court found that the district court had not abused its discretion in calculating attorney’s fees. The record indicated that Shackleford strongly believed Butler tried to force a settlement, and thus Butler was discharged for cause.  The appellate court did not dispute this belief. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the starting point for a quantum meruit analysis was the reasonable value of Butler’s services. Subsequently, because Shackleford did not specify the amount of damages caused by Butler’s termination, the district court did not err in holding that Berman did not prove that Butler’s termination had damaged the case. The court rejected the argument that all of the legal fees that Shackleford incurred prior to firing Butler are his damages.

The appellate court found that the district court’s record indicated that that court properly considered the totality of the circumstances when determining a quantum meruit award that was fair to both the attorney and the client.


[1] Shackleford v. Sailor’s Wharf, Inc., 2019 U.S. App.LEXIS 12605, 2019 WL 1812222, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019).

The Current Loyola Maritime Law Journal

The Current is the blog of the Loyola New Orleans Maritime Law Journal, where we post updates to keep our readers up to date about new decisions in maritime law. We also post news about the Journal and its' members.

Previous
Previous

Seaman’s Complaint for Punitive Damages Dismissed

Next
Next

Trial Court Finds Question of Fact in Determining Choice of Law: Lauritzen v. Larsen Factors Indecisive to Determine Choice of Law